posted at 12:55 pm on July 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to ask Sherrod to resign, a decision he reconsidered after seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.

She said she doesn’t want an apology from Breitbart for posting the video that took her comments out of context, but told a crowd at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention that she would “definitely sue.”

Sue Breitbart for what, though? Defamation? Sherrod is a public official, which makes that kind of lawsuit darned near impossible. Breitbart used the clip to criticize the NAACP, not Sherrod directly, although she certainly came into the line of fire. People are allowed to criticize public officials in harsh and even unfair terms, especially when they make public remarks.

A court is not likely to look favorably on this for another reason — Sherrod’s public statements about Breitbart. She accused him of being pro-slavery, which is a ridiculous and demagogic attack. Even if a court somehow found that Breitbart acted with malice specifically towards Sherrod to a level that overcomes the right to criticize public officials and that he lied about Sherrod specifically in doing so, under those same terms Breitbart would have a countercase against Sherrod. Otherwise, Breitbart has become enough of a public figure that Sherrod’s statements about him would probably not be actionable, either.

This lawsuit will make a big splash and keep the story alive for a while, but its value is strictly limited to PR. I somehow doubt that the Obama administration will see that as beneficial to its own objectives, either, as they seem as anxious to bury the story as anyone involved.

Comments

There you go again; with unreasonably high expectations of what ought to occur.

You should not assume that a judge, in this day and age, will apply much thought to the law or the merits of the case, but will in all likelihood decide in advance how they want to rule based upon the politics, the demographics of the parties, the favors they might be able to curry with the powers that be, etc.

Let’s take the Krauthammer Spectacles off (you know, the ones that presume no one would act so heinously, even though the ample evidence is that they in fact will), and look at it from the alternate perspective/mindset for a moment;

…black aggrieved woman sues white racist male in a liberal political environment with liberal media hyping the case breathlessly 24/7 and with a black liberal President who might just remember you favorably if you rule the way he’d certainly like you to…

Yeah, if I were Breitbart, I wouldn’t put too much stock in what the court *ought* to do. Of late, we live in a “rule of law be damned” reality, folks.

If there are only 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire country, then how can over 86,000 of them claim discrimination at the hands of the USDA? Where did the other 46,303 come from?

I somehow doubt that the Obama administration will see that as beneficial to its own objectives, either, as they seem as anxious to bury the story as anyone involved.

I disagree. “Playing the race card” only work because white people are terrified of being called racist. Breitbart’s aggressive criticism serves to dull that fear, which reduces the power of the race hustlers and the Democratic Party by extension. Bankrupting Breitbart with frivolous lawsuits to get rid of him is a viable, however odious, strategy.

Sue baby sue! You da bomb baby.
This guy done ya wrong and its’ yer right ta sue!
Don’t worry about any other tapes he may have or what it may do to Pinnochio Obama or the dimwits in congress they will be OK.
Don’t worry that the phony multi million dolla judgement ya screwed the taxpayer out of or the fact that they may not be worth the paper they is printed on!
This White Man owes ya for deflamination or deficatiton or eflation or er, ah, somethin SUE!

Sherrod has no case based on the publication of the video itself because “truth” is a defense to both defamation and false light claims. It is true that Sherrod said those words. Breitbart may not have shown the whole video, but he did not manipulate the content of the video. Showing a portion of that video does not constitute an actionable claim. However, if Breitbart made additional comments about Sherrod that were not true, then these comments might be actionable. For example, if he said that she discriminated against the white farmer (and this appears to be false from the subsequent news coverage), then Sherrod may have a claim based on that. However, any claim would be tempered by the fact that Sherrod apparently suffered no damages whatsoever. The government offered Sherrod’s job back to her, or a better one. Her reputation has been more than restored by the mainstream media within 48 hours or less. So, even if Breitbart arguably did something wrong, she cannot sustain a meaningful lawsuit against him because she did not suffer any harm. Therefore, I suspect that such a lawsuit would be prosecuted for political purposes only.

IF you accept that Sherrod has a case against Breitbart, then it follows that she has a case against the government and the NAACP. The government for firing her without cause which stays on her employment record, and the NAACP for slandering her in public and in discussions with the WH.

Discovery might also bring out evidence of Bammie’s involvement in her firing, which would prove that the WH lied about his involvement. Yeah, I know, what’s one more lie on a long list, but it might make for a good 2012 ad.

Breitbart also claims against the NAACP, and the feds for contribution and/or that their actions are the true cause of any damages allegedly sustained by Sherrod. Also, since Sherrod has had her reputation ENHANCED by the after shocks of this scandal, proving damages to her reputation, of only a day would also negate the case. Then we have the fun stuff of discovery where she and her husband, the NAACP and WH and agency officials are deposed on race issues and the firing. Popcorn and good times follow.

Andrew is counting the days until he’s served. Sherrod is so used to playing the race card and seeing that mau-mauing the flack catchers works, that she’s really got no game when going up against a serious and principled opponent like Breitbart. Since he’s going to rack up legal bills fighting this off, he might as well go on the offensive and countersue.

It’s sad, but I’m sure that Sherrod has no clue just how defamatory she was when she said that Breitbart is a racist and yearns for the return of slavery. It’s possible that she ascribes to the belief that black people cannot be racist. We know that the Obama/Holder Dept of Justice ascribes to that belief.

Sherrod has been a “professional black person” her entire life. Her entire life is defined, by herself, in racial and racialist terms. What isn’t racialist is redistributionist and suspicious of unspecified “they” who keep poor whites and poor blacks in conflict and in poverty.

The second this case goes to court, I expect to see a flood of lawsuits against Michael Moore…and Chris Matthews…and every politician who ever released a campaign ad in their life featuring their opponent.

Wronged or not, this woman is an idiot and does not deserve her office back.

The second this case goes to court, I expect to see a flood of lawsuits against Michael Moore…and Chris Matthews…and every politician who ever released a campaign ad in their life featuring their opponent.

Wronged or not, this woman is an idiot and does not deserve her office back.

Breitbart would turn over so many rocks and raise so much hell on the left with discovery that he’d need to open a new website. He could call it Big Fishing.

petefrt on July 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM

It’s time to bring it on. Let’s have an honest discussion about this crap, and I dare Holder to call us “cowards” again. The head of the DoJ is trying to intimidate the American public, and I’m not going to be silent.

It’s over as far as I’m concerned. Finished. Race baiters play on the past and prey on those who had no part. I won’t be a party to unmitigated greed and bigotry any longer.

She is either getting bad advice, or she is an idiot. There is no case in this against Breitbart. He posted a video of the woman opening her mouth and letting all that BS slide right out of there. Breitbart didn’t make her do that. He just had an opinion about her speech and the audience’s reaction.

This woman has become an irritant much like a fungus under a toenail. She should have cut her best deal with the USDA while she had the chance instead of trying to become a liberal media darling. She ain’t got what it takes and her own words will eventually be her undoing.

Now, she probably does have a case against the government for wrongful dismissal, hostile work environment, yada, yada, yada. Of course, she better not have any skeletons in that closet either.

Does anyone else get the feeling that her superiors probably had the immediate thought that “Shirley is at it again” when they rushed to force the resignation? If she had friends at the USDA that knew her well, wouldn’t they have come forward immediately and spoke up for the woman? I mean, there was like no hesitation to drop the hammer on this woman and in a hurry. Yeah, some history in this one I betcha.

She said she doesn’t want an apology from Breitbart for posting the video that took her comments out of context, but told a crowd at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention that she would “definitely sue.”